A Canadian province is about to start trialling universal basic income

[cerebus]

You guys opposing secularism now with all this justification from an old religious book....

I'm not a secularist, but the only reason we're bringing up the Bible is in response to Arthur's moral outrage at being forced to provide common welfare out of his state taxes. I'm just wondering where the moral part of that comes from.

Nah, he means government should have no say in anything commercially related. Pity the poor people that die from lead poisoning.

I'm not sure that's what he means at all. Or if it is, it's in-apposite to the debate... which isn't anything new for arthur, but still...it's a baffling statement.

 

[w1z4rd]

Monopolies will always form, with or without governments, its basically an economic fact. The only thing that can break a monopoly up though... is smart regulation. A weak or small government would not be able to break up a monopoly. SA is a perfect example of a weak ineffective government that cant regulate the market well.

 

[RanzB]

I'm not a secularist

I'm guessing you mean you are a secularist?

 

[cerebus]

I'm guessing you mean you are a secularist?

No, I'm not particularly secularist.

 

[Arthur]

No, I'm not particularly secularist.

On the other hand, I am avowedly secularist. It is not the business of the State to propagate, favour or suppress ideas. Of course I know that's far too radical for most moderns, so I'll settle for being called an unhinged utopian.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

How do you know that? Look at the previously posted studies about trials in other countries, it didn't.

Though the point was made it was known to be a temporary arrangement therefor the long term effects cannot be known, positive or negative.

Can have unintended consequences is more accurate.

It can also have very positive consequences.

Indeed it can have positive consequences, similar to a thread some weeks back when minimum wage for farm workers in ZA was increased I would maintain that I expect the negative to outweigh the positive.

One thing that is guaranteed by handing out free money is the productivity represented by each dollar / rand / pound is reduced. How long can the economy as a whole cope with paying more money for less productivity before it naturally adjusts to compensate with increased prices for example?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Anyway, basic income is actually a simplification of the welfare system. At present there are multiple, highly bureaucratic departments with their own rules and costs. If you are in favour of reducing governmental interference, you should also be in favour of something like the universal basic income.

Why? I see basic income as a symptom of a wider failure in the system, I favour treating the disease rather than treating the symptoms. So no, not in support of basic income.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

There are actually a number of Libertarians that support the idea of a basic income.

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income: Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.

A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been Waiting For

Libertarians are not immune to forming factions like most movements / ideologies, the Cato Institute being of a distinctly different school of libertarians than the Mises Institute: https://mises.org/library/tale-two-libertarianisms

But yes you are quite correct.

 

[cerebus]

No. That is not what I mean.

Taxes may legitimately be raised to fund the bureaucratic apparatus required to protect and vindicate peoples' right to life and property. Courts, police, prisons, and a defence force. Ordinary rational justice requires that every human be free to sell their labour to whom they wish, at a price freely agreed, without let or interference by anyone else least of all the State.

The State's natural right to raise taxes does not extend to the State itself becoming an economic player or the arbiter of ideas. The State has no business whatsoever providing employment, housing, education, medical services, dental services, broadcasting services, entertainment, sports, telecommunications, food subsidies, fuel subsidies, postal services, etc, etc, etc, etc. Especially not free income to others, as Ontario proposes. The State has nothing except what it takes from others. These functions are best performed by free citizens in association with others, without State involvement. Raising taxes to provide these economic goods and services is immoral, in my view.

You and I as free citizens should shoulder our personal and social responsibility to care for the marginalised and dispossessed and those who have fallen on hard times through not fault of their own. By choosing to use the State as the instrument to do so, we concentrate too much power in the hands of mere mortals -- the State naturally and rightly wields the power of the sword (ie it is the sole legal user of force in society). To also give it economic power is to fundamentally distort the ordinary relations between citizens, because it shifts the game from the free and impartial competition of ideas and actions to currying the favour of Caesar. History is largely the story of that distortion.

So, government should be isolated to legislature and armed defense. Welfare should be charitable. Public infrastructure should be... privatized? Sounds pretty loopy to believe that people could compensate for a lack of government welfare through simple charity (after all, charities themselves aren't immune from bureaucratic creep and quasi-governmental inefficiency), or that the poor shouldn't have access to basic healthcare or education, which would give them any hope of elevating themselves out of poverty.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Though the point was made it was known to be a temporary arrangement therefor the long term effects cannot be know, positive or negative.

That was for one such trial, not all of them.

Indeed it can have positive consequences, similar to a thread some weeks back when minimum wage for farm workers in ZA was increased I would maintain that I expect the negative to outweigh the positive.

One thing that is guaranteed by handing out free money is the productivity represented by each dollar / rand / pound is reduced. How long can the economy as a whole cope with paying more money for less productivity before it naturally adjusts to compensate with increased prices for example?

That is not guaranteed at all (evidence if you maintain it is...?).

Productivity could well go up because more basic (but lacking) necessities of workers are abrogated. Someone who's less worried about whether his children are fed each day will be a more productive worker etc.

Why? I see basic income as a symptom of a wider failure in the system, I favour treating the disease rather than treating the symptoms. So no, not in support of basic income.

It can, at least theoretically, treat the "disease". It allows breathing room for people who are otherwise stuck in a perpetual or very-difficult-to-escape poverty cycle. For people who have very little to begin with this bit extra can make the world of difference. It allows them to pay for food, for education, for housing, for whatever else is keeping them from becoming a bit more socially mobile.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

That is not guaranteed at all (evidence if you maintain it is...?).

Productivity could well go up because more basic (but lacking) necessities of workers are abrogated. Someone who's less worried about whether his children are fed each day will be a more productive worker etc.

Simple math is the evidence? i.e. paying somebody X per hour vs (X + Y) per hour ... there is an immediate and direct mathematically calculable reduction in how many hours of labour X now buys you.

Sure a well fed and happy worker might start to work harder, might, even so what are the odds of that bringing the immediate negative effect back to where it was or even surpassing it? If you double my salary right now I can be as motivated as hell, but I'm unlikely to double my productivity if I'm already working very hard.

So there is an immediate negative effect on the productivity the same amount of money buys, can the positive catch up and surpass it? I don't believe in miracles, but to be fair I'll say I think it is highly unlikely that would be the case on average across all workers who get the free money.

 

[w1z4rd]

Consumers drive the market. More money for the consumers = better market. Business is reactive to consumers. It can not exist without the consumers.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Consumers drive the market. More money for the consumers = better market. Business is reactive to consumers. It can not exist without the consumers.

While I agree in general, I see the effects of free money being more like an endless loop:
More free money for consumers = more demand from the market
More demand from the market = higher prices
Higher prices = more free money needed for consumers

 

[icyrus]

So, government should be isolated to legislature and armed defense. Welfare should be charitable. Public infrastructure should be... privatized? Sounds pretty loopy to believe that people could compensate for a lack of government welfare through simple charity (after all, charities themselves aren't immune from bureaucratic creep and quasi-governmental inefficiency), or that the poor shouldn't have access to basic healthcare or education, which would give them any hope of elevating themselves out of poverty.

"Sounds pretty loopy" is easily the nicest thing that can be said about libertarianism. I would go with bat**** ****ing insane.

 

[w1z4rd]

While I agree in general, I see the effects of free money being more like an endless loop:
More free money for consumers = more demand from the market
More demand from the market = higher prices

Or more businesses supplying the market which keeps price affordable.

Higher prices = more free money needed for consumers

Yup, higher prices means less money for consumers.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Edit Sorry to bring the Bible into this, but as Arthur is making an ethics argument here I'm faintly amused and very curious as to exactly which ethics he is talking about.

It's a valid point in any case. The Roman Catholic Church often had a say in how laws were made, which is one of the reasons why they don't pay taxes today on their enourmous wealth. Bringing up the Bible as an example is good because many organised religions likewise influenced the courts of old.

I do not agree. Studies have shown that It the age of mechanizing we create more jobs. Specially skilled jobs. So we create more wealth for people in the end by mechanizing things. Yes there are sectors like farming that will have jobs lost but skilled factory workers increase with the explosion of technology and our craving for the newest best everything we create more jobs.

Have you ever seen a 3D printer print and assemble a copy of itself? I have, it's amazing. Do you know what we're building for a future manned Mars mission? 3D printers and assembly robots that can repair themselves. Once that tech trickles down to commercial sectors around 2030, even factory workers assembling parts for a robot floor sweeper will be out of work, and only the most skilled artisans will be hired for work on an assembly line.

Mechanising more industries just means that the people doing menial work will be out of a job. Imagine ultra-clean streets and garbage collection every day because robots are the workforce and not humans, and won't ever strike, require weekly wages, or complain when they're being treated unfairly.

I'm going to be out of a job eventually, as far as fixing computers is concerned. There will be computers that repair computer problems without the sysadmin having to sit down and do it himself.

The poor aren't getting richer, things are just getting cheaper and more accessible. That's not due to the 1%, that's due to the natural progression of society.

Some things are getting cheaper, but basic foodstuffs continue to become more expensive. Keeping up with rent, utilities, medical bills, etc. means that more people live on debt than enjoying being debt-free. Our country and its citizens are a rather good example of that.

Basic income may have good intentions, but will yield unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits imo.

I think the benefits outweigh the cons. No human has to suffer because of an economic climate that means that they can't find work, and no-one is forced to be homeless, or made to go hungry for days. A basic income gives these people a lifeline, and gives lower and working-class families some room to breathe and save, and invest, and plan for retirement and their children's education.

The State's natural right to raise taxes does not extend to the State itself becoming an economic player or the arbiter of ideas. The State has no business whatsoever providing employment, housing, education, medical services, dental services, broadcasting services, entertainment, sports, telecommunications, food subsidies, fuel subsidies, postal services, etc, etc, etc, etc. Especially not free income to others, as Ontario proposes. The State has nothing except what it takes from others. These functions are best performed by free citizens in association with others, without State involvement. Raising taxes to provide these economic goods and services is immoral, in my view.

So in this example, what does the state do with the money? Where does it go? What it is used for? Does its use benefit me, and why? Are you certain that big business will keep their prices low, and make accessibility easy, just because the government isn't regulating the market and providing its own basic services?

 

[Arthur]

"Sounds pretty loopy" is easily the nicest thing that can be said about libertarianism. I would go with bat**** ****ing insane.

Hehe. Of course I know why you say that. You just can't imagine a world different from the one we have.

It's what the ancien régimes in Europe called the utopian and unworkable American Experiment. Two hundred years later we know that their madness resulted in the most creative, productive, inventive, innovative, charitable and wealthy society in the history of the world. Yes, and of course I know there were and are contradictions. Slavery is the biggest. As African-American economist Thomas Sowell says repeatedly, slavery is an ugly contradiction of the free market that the Founders said they supported. They failed to properly implement their own professed principles of liberty, to their shame.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Ugh. So much fixation on money, money, money. UBI should be seen as a first step to begin weaning us away from a money-based economy to a post-scarcity one. We already have the potential for infinite energy (solar), the only other requirement for post-scarcity is infinite resources, and we already have those in our solar system; we just need to go get them.

 

[MrGray]

Tsk. Tsk. All this pointless bickering when all we have to do is bookmark this thread and wait as we watch the Ontario economy implode as the producers flee and the entitled freeloaders invade. See y'all in 5-10 yrs, it's going to be fun

 

[Nicodeamus]

Ugh. So much fixation on money, money, money. UBI should be seen as a first step to begin weaning us away from a money-based economy to a post-scarcity one. We already have the potential for infinite energy (solar), the only other requirement for post-scarcity is infinite resources, and we already have those in our solar system; we just need to go get them.

heh, looney madness...